Ludwig v. Astrue
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
681 F.3d 1047 (2012)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Ludwig (plaintiff) had conflicting medical history in that he had made wildly differing statements about his physical and mental conditions to different people at different times. Ludwig applied for Social Security Disability. The Social Security Administration (defendant) denied the application. Ludwig requested and received a hearing on his application. At the hearing, Ludwig’s inconsistent statements about his medical condition continued. In short, Ludwig was not a credible witness. After the hearing but before the administrative law judge (ALJ) had rendered a decision, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent told the ALJ that he had seen Ludwig walking normally and that Ludwig was faking his physical disability. The ALJ disclosed the ex parte communication to Ludwig’s counsel. The lawyer requested that the ALJ not give any weight to the FBI agent’s statement, or, alternatively, that he be permitted to cross-examine the agent in a supplementary hearing. The ALJ issued a decision affirming the denial of Ludwig’s application. In the decision, the ALJ stated that he did “not assign significant weight” to the FBI agent’s statement. Ludwig appealed the decision in federal court. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Ludwig appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kleinfeld, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
